Grumbling ABOUT the weather.

And played so convincingly by an American actor. Then again Churchill himself was half American

Only thing missing is the tea

@@mjremy2605 oh, give it a rest

Too tall

👏👏👏👏👏Best comment of the lot!!!🏆👍👏👏

He was a fine leader during the war. By the 50’s, he was a geriatric, cantankerous has-been. A shadow of his former self. It was a dumb move by the Brits in 1951 re-electing Churchill as Prime Minister.

Lithgow is nearly a foot taller than Churchill!

Lithgow will go down as the greatest, most versatile actor that the world largely remembers for a gimmicky sitcom from an era of terrible sitcoms; the poor b******! XD

yes indeed, but did you also see Gary Oldman portray Churchill in the movie "Darkest Hour"?

@@DaveFisher-cq2dr No, but I'm going to check it out.

@@ShannonFreng oh it's really good, Gary Oldman won best actor for that role

@@DaveFisher-cq2drI just checked out Oldman's, Lithgow's and Robert Hardy's, Dave, but I must go with Hardy's. But they're all good.

That's where I first saw him, and then on DEXTER, and now this.

I thought he referred to Philip, not Charles

@@thfdljsxnuyql Philip could never become king, he was only the Prince-Consort.

Well, that is how time works. It is indeed the future from Churchills pov.

@@TheArrowedKnee That's not exactly right. Through his mother, grandmother and great-grandmother he was a descendent from Queen Victoria as well as his wife, so he was in the line of succession. 🙂But to become king he would have hade a lot of "work" to do...

@@red.aries1444 Yeah that's fair, however, i should've said, he had no realistic chance of ever becoming King.

Because it's a show and they have to maximize the drama in everything.

Because he's more or less England's saviour, or seen as such, that she admires him a lot and that he's also much older and experienced than her.

along came Harold Wilson. He is credited for teaching Elizabeth about the "real world" with his blunt honesty and about the North/miner towns. He was one of her favourites. @@Xerxes2005

Because she was still young and inexperienced, while Churchill was much older and more experienced, with a very forceful personality. Had she been 20 years older and able to go back in time, I doubt it would have gone the same way.

@@bluemarlin8138although you have to admire her political acumen when early on in season 1 of The Crown she cleverly deduced the reason Churchill delayed her coronation ceremony was to buy him more time in power and called him out on it.

I reckon so, she looked upto him a lot and he knew it.

I doubt it; he was very good at modulating his language and was a monarchist through and through.

@@viewfromthehillswift6979 Perhaps. But he was known to be quite the bully and hot-tempered. Also, back then, men were far less deferential to women, even the monarchs. He was known to treat her more like the "Former King's Daughter" than the Queen.

Probably. He was known to be a bit gruff, and she was a young, I experienced queen who looked up to him nearly as much as she looked up to her father, if not moreso.

I mean come on Churchill was almost a legend at this point and the age of her grandfather. Churchill was old and likely grumpyish too.

The monarch can. It is just that there is fallout if the monarch does that.

Then you haven't educated yourself enough to understand the complex and admirable relationship WC and HMTQ had.

Definitely possible. A very young and inexperienced Queen talking to a Prime Minister regarded as the Father of the nation.

Absolutely not

They were related

Both were spencers, and always can be pissed off at the right place and time.

What on earth do you mean

He served in the Royal Navy.

The Irish Free State effectively ceased to exist before WWII in 1937, when the Constitution came into effect on 29 December.

Maybe so, but if it had been needed she would have. The queen understood the necessity of putting kingdom over personal preferences and likes

The Queen could only remove Royal Approval - she could not fire him. While it could have amounted to the same thing - in practice it almost definitely would not have. Had any monarch after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 tried to fire an elected minister - it is more than likely that it would have ended the monarchy - not the minister.

@@PaulRoneClarke Actually, she can dismiss the PM and dissolve the parliament and call for new elections. Do such would cause a stir, but hardly "end the monarchy".

@@will_it_work The monarch insisting that a democratically elected government was replaced would, I'm sure, end it, and quickly. It is more likely that the monarch would say "I am unable to endorse this government and withdraw my patronage" Then leave the constitutional experts to sort it out. That's not the same thing as demanding a new government. While it retains about 60% popularity at the moment, the younger generation are more republican 41% of under 28's and 47% of under 16's support the monarchy. This shift towards republicanism in the young is quite new. In 1977 there were roughly the same number of under 25's supporting the monarchy as there were over 50's.And that was over 80% of the population. The monarchy interfering with a democratically elected government - whether it is one you support or not - would not go down well and the constitutional crisis would - I'm sure - end the monarchy, Just because people hate the current government does not mean they would embrace the tyranny of a singular unelected head of state exercising dictatorial power.

Harold Wilson was her favourite PM. They used to do the washing up together when he stayed at Balmoral.

So what, u want them to just talk for 20 minutes which would take up almost half of an episode? Please use your brain and think that this is just a damn show.

​I see this in a lot of shows these days. In police dramas they will travel out to interview a witness, ask two questions then go. Even if they wanted to ask only two questions they would be there longer. There are ways of implying more time has elapsed than has been shown. A fade out on the greeting and fade in on a piece of inconsequential dialogue is the traditional way. The writers these days, though, have to drive the plot at a certain pace and that detracts from realism in scenes like this. Whole stories are told by having characters belch out plot points with none of the side conversations, etc that flesh out characters and situations.

According to IMDB he’s only in his late 70’s

I'm not sure if he was thinking about the well-being of his country when he kept his incapacitating illness and that of his Foreign Secretary a secret. He put the country in a vulnerable position for the sake of holding on to power.

How was Washington’s treatment of people worse than others of his time? Seems to me that he had average morals for then, even better than average

@@mikeym1479dude was legitimately was confused why his slaves didn’t like work.

You shouldn't. Washington was a fool that started a war against the French over nothing, lost more battles against the Brits than he won and when things got hairy as POTUS he resigned. He was also a slave-owner who only ordered his slaves freed after both he and his wife had died. Churchill was a drunk and a racist that was referred to as a nuisance by his generals (Churchill didnt want to attack Normandy but the Balkans and kept obsessing over it - so the idea that he won the war is laughable), no one in his own party liked him as he was seen as a dinosaur even then and he was directly responsible for millions of Indians dying by taking away their food during a famine and when his cabinet expressed concern, he said "Indians are a beastly people with a beastly religion. If they're dying, it's their own fault for breeding like rabbits". Neither men should be worthy of your respect

Both were recognized as exceptional, great men in their time. Even great men can be assholes. Might be part of what made them so great.

As there is no formal constitution, more of a collection of conventions, the office of the prime minister formally is appointed by the crown and in effect could be dismissed as such, would that actually happen I doubt it I expect if such a situation arose it would take the form of stepping down then a formal dismissal.

@@egohdeNo, you've got it the wrong way round. In reality, the Monarch is only a figurehead doing as they're told by elected figures. Their asking the elected Prime Minister to form a new government after the election is a mere formality. So is the Prime Minister's visit to the Monarch before an election, so as to the dissolve the current Parliament. The Monarch has no power to choose which individual will be Prime Minister, nor when an election takes place. Any Monarch trying to sack an elected Prime Minister would be ignored, and possibly also censured in some way.

You are not completely right about this one. The hole thing is the difference between the theoretical power of the monarch and what happens in reality. In theory the monarch asks a random MP (or member of the House of Lords) to form his government. And because it his his government, the monarch can sack the PM at any time and appoint a new one. While the monarch has this power theoretically, using this power would basically lead directly to ending the monarchy or at least ending the own time on the throne. There is no real constitution saying: the monarch can do this and that. It‘s just how history developed

@@salvatore8898No, I'm definitely right. Because the Constitution is not written down explicitly, it's executed by consensus and what happens in practice, changing over time. The Monarch once had the practical power you describe, but no longer does, according to those terms. Therefore, that constitutional power no longer exists.

@@crispincoquethey don’t have the real power no, but legally and constitutionally the King/Queen appoints the PM and has the right to sack them. But, yes in reality today this would not happen.